Is space fake?

When I first got into 9/11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10% of the population who would automatically assume that the government did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10% who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got.

— Gerard Holmgren, A Theory

Unsurprisingly, the ludicrous recent Blue Origin “space” trip by six rich women has been called out as fake. Reasons given include:

• Nonsensical that the women are untrained, not harnessed, the capsule travels at a great speed and slams into the ground. Response: the women are not crew, merely passengers as the capsule is remote-controlled and supposedly hit the ground at 1.6km per hour - the dust blown around the capsule as it lands suggesting slamming is caused by air being ejected from the capsule to soften the landing. There was no requirement for harnessing after re-entry as the descent was controlled for the passengers to enjoy the weightless part of the trip.

• After landing, the hatch is seen to open from the inside, close and then be opened again by Jeff Bezos using a special tool. Response: the hatch is openable from both inside and outside and perhaps it was simply desired for PR purposes to have Bezos let the passengers out.

• The hatch is too flimsy. Response: it’s actually quite thick.

• The capsule is too clean compared to other capsules re-entering earth. Response: the capsule barely made it into space and didn’t go into orbit. Capsules that re-enter from orbit are travelling at 17,500 mph creating large amounts of drag and heat where the Blue Origin capsule was travelling much slower.

While it may be nauseating, there is no evidence it was fake. See Dave McKeegan’s video, No! They didn't fake Blue Origin, for more detail.

For the disbelievers: Consider the seeming coherence of the imagery shown of space capsules that are said to have travelled in orbit and suffered extreme drag and heat showing signs of that experience while the BO capsule did not. Do you reason:

• the Space Fakers had the foresight to fake the alleged heat-suffering space capsules as dirty and barely-made-it-to-space capsule as white?

• space capsules should always look dirty (or clean) coming back to earth no matter what?

• other?

The disbelief in space continuum

The disbelief in space continuum ranges from:

• Rockets can’t work in a vacuum, the moon landings were faked, there are no satellites (including no International Space Station (ISS)) to

• Other claims may be true about space but the moon landings were staged.

My beliefs about space

• The moon landings happened and were a truly awesome achievement BUT there is a psyop related to the moon landings and that is the psyop that the moon landings were fake whose purpose is to dupe those with a perfectly valid reason to disbelieve official narratives which are so often false most of the time and undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the very many real lies. The moon landings psyop is discussed immediately below.

• Satellites including the ISS are real - if interested, you can watch Dave McKeegan’s videos on photographing the ISS and how movement in the ISS couldn’t be done with wires.

• The alleged 1986 Challenger disaster is one of the most brazen psyops of all time in that the evidence shows that six of the seven alleged crew are walking around with the same or similar name or name of an alleged sibling.
  Note: Only three of the alleged crew, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik and Ellison Onizuka, had been on previous missions despite 24 space shuttle missions having occurred since 1981.
  
  The discussion of the Challenger disaster psyop has moved to a separate article.
  

Irrefutable - there are agents promoting the moon landings were faked

Regardless of whether the moon landings actually happened:

• at least four prominent moon hoaxers - Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Dave McGowan and Massimo Mazzucco - are clearly agents paid to promote moon landings hoax theories who do not say a single word that refutes the reality of the moon landings.

• no disbeliever (or believer) has indicated they are aware that the Four Horsemen of the Moon Landings Hoax Psyop only put forward propaganda/lies on the subject. However:

  • some disbelievers recognise that McGowan and Mazzucco are agents in relation to other subjects (while not identifying a single lie they tell on the moon landings nor that they ONLY tell lies or irrelevant truths).

  • some believers, eg, Dave McKeegan, recognise they don’t simply get things wrong on the moon landings but actually tell lies. See Exposing the lies of Bart Sibrel.

• disbelievers of the moon landings clearly have not done due diligence because if they had they would have recognised the Four Horsemen had no truth to tell on the subject.

• it is very difficult to shoehorn into the “fake” hypothesis some of the facts above. How would it be possible for at least four prominent moon hoaxers to not say a single word of relevant truth on the moon landings if they really didn’t happen?

• disbelievers respond to the highly salient facts above in the following ways:

  • They ignore them.

  • They say their disbelief is in no way influenced by anything the Four Horsemen have put forward.
    Response: the point is that regardless of the lack of influence on any individual disbeliever by the propaganda of the Four Horsemen, not a single one has recognised they only have propaganda/lies to tell on the subject … not one … and most certainly thousands of disbelievers admire at least some of the work of these four propagandists and propagate it themselves - Wagging the Moondoggie was my first port of call on my moon landings journey recommended to me by a disbelieving friend.

  • They say they know these people are controlled operatives.
    Response: This isn’t the issue. The issue is that they have not identified that they have no truth to tell on the moon landings.

The News-Benders (1968) - predictive programming of the moon landings “hoax”

While superficially, the 30m BBC drama, The News-Benders (1968), might seem to tell us a very important and taboo truth - namely, that the news is fabricated - on careful inspection we can see that it is a mix of distortion and lies and gives precisely zero good information on how news events are fabricated and the great number of them. It misleads both those with inclinations to believe and those with inclinations to disbelieve - believers will pay no attention to the rubbishing of moon rockets at the outset when the film suggests that the fabricated moon landings event will be a joint venture between Russia and the US while the disbelievers will believe the rubbishing and simply interpret the US/Russia thing as allowable fiction in the allegedly fabricated moon landings that start the year after the program aired.

Anyone expecting the BBC to tell the kind of taboo truth suggested by this drama is extremely naïve. See Priming the disbelievers: the moon landings and 9/11.

Was the faked Challenger disaster predictive programming for the disbelievers?

While the discussion of the Challenger disaster psyop has moved to a separate article, the paragraph below applies here.

Could this brazen event have been a “plant” to encourage skeptics of official narratives to reject everything we are told about space just as the 1968 BBC drama, The News Benders, was? Could it also be intended to put those who recognise the reality of humans in space in an awkward position when confronted by this fakery by the “conspiracy theorists”? We know that those in power aim to divide us, have us defend nonsense and bamboozle us all the better to keep us under control - believers and disbelievers alike - so in order for the phenomenon of humans in space to be real without exception, space aficionados must defend the clear fakery of the Challenger disaster event. Those in power understand well enough that those of us who tend to accept official narratives - that is, the majority - will simply gloss over the very obvious fact of the alleged astronauts still being alive and it’s simply amazing that many fact-checkers deny the people are the same people.

Dear disbeliever, are you concerned more with your own thoughts than having credibility?

I, like many other hardcore psyop analysts, have learned from very bitter and frustrating experience that it makes absolutely not a jot of difference how much clear evidence you put forward for events being psyops, your words will almost always fall on the deaf ears of those hostile to criticism of official narratives or simply brainwashed by them and who, unfortunately, comprise the vast majority.

Yes, I’ve been there many, many times. However, that doesn’t mean that I don’t always aim to ensure I have a water-tight case as much as I’m able (while also maintaining an open mind in case the person I’m laying my case before has a good argument against it).

From many going-nowhere arguments with my sister, it is obvious that her concern is only with her own thoughts that convince her on the subject and not with making a good case to lay before others. My sister, generally, is perfectly happy to disbelieve or believe differently from absolutely everyone else with zero concern about others’ beliefs whereas I want to ensure I have a good case even if I know that it’s unlikely to persuade. So while we are both equally willing to disbelieve the authorities, the polarity in our concern with laying down a good case constitutes a chasm between us.

Dear disbeliever, are you an anti-expert and do you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect?

As a psyop analyst, I’m the first to recognise that alleged authorities on subjects aren’t necessarily correct and, in fact, can be so utterly incorrect it makes one’s head spin. Some of them also tell massive lies or simply go along with them. Even growing up I was never one to feel that those in authority were to be respected simply because of their position or alleged expertise. However, I recognise that there are genuine experts out there - people who know vastly more than I do on many subjects without necessarily possessing any particular credentials, including the moon landings … which isn’t to say they can’t still be wrong, of course, however, it is good to have a sense of when someone knows more on a subject than you do. Disbelievers of the moon landings seem to have no sense at all that the people who speak for the reality of the moon landings are in possession of a great deal of knowledge … because they have a genuine interest in the subject and find the subject fascinating. Their interest in them isn’t only to defend the official narrative as is the case with so many who defend false official narratives, they’re simply interested in the subject … and as a result of that interest - in some cases at least - is great knowledge.

The Dunning-Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias where individuals with low ability in a specific area overestimate their competence. This bias stems from a lack of self-awareness, where individuals are unaware of their own incompetence, making them unable to recognize the limitations in their knowledge or skills.

No disbeliever of the moon landings has recognised that the Four Horsemen of the Moon Landings Hoax Psyop only put forward propaganda on the subject. Does that spell the D-K effect?

Dear disbeliever, I ask you to do due diligence

It’s not so hard to do due diligence on the moon landings. You just need an open mind and a willingness to look. I have compiled a page of resources. Please take a look. There is an invitation at the bottom of the Apollo Resources page to add valid debunking material … so if you think there is some please let me know … and if you don’t think there is any valid material among the masses produced obviously that’s something to ponder.